Disposed

Revathi v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC19 Jun 2025HCP(MD)/677/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mother filed habeas corpus alleging her 19-year-old daughter was missing and detained by the fourth respondent. State reported the daughter had married the fourth respondent voluntarily and was not in illegal custody. Court found she was a major free to make her own decision, closed the petition, and directed police protection.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed with direction to second respondent to give protection to petitioner's daughter and fourth respondent.

Revathi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

H.C.P(MD) No.677 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶8

H.C.P(MD)No.677 of 2025

¶9

Revathi

¶10

... Petitioner/

¶11

Mother of the detenue

¶12

-Vs-

¶13

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by The Superintendant of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

¶14

2.The Deputy Superintendant of Police, Thiruvadanai,

¶15

Ramanathapuram District.

¶16

3.The Tamil Nadu State Rep by the The Inspector of Police, Thondi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶17

4.Mugesh Kannan

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to produce the body or person of the petitioner's daughter/detenue by name

¶20

Page 1 of 5

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

H.C.P(MD) No.677 of 2025

¶23

Subasri, D/o.Sasikumar, aged about 19 years before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Mahendrarajan For R1 to R3 : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.)

¶27

Alleging that the petitioner's daughter aged about 19 years old, who had completed Diploma in Nursing and working in Kavitha Hospital, Vellakoil, was missing from 03.05.2025 after her engagement on 02.05.2020 and that she had gone along with jewels, the petitioner had given a complaint to the third respondent police. The third respondent police has registered the complaint in C.S.R.No.195 of 2025. Thereafter, the third respondent has not taken any action and thereby, the petitioner has given a complaint to the first and second respondents alleging that her daughter was kept in illegal detention of the fourth respondent. Since no action has been taken to secure the daughter of the petitioner, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed.

¶28

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the

¶29

daughter of the petitioner aged about 19 years old and the engagement between

¶30

Page 2 of 5

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

H.C.P(MD) No.677 of 2025

¶33

the missing person and one Selvakumar was conducted on 02.05.2025 and on the next day, the missing person had escaped from the house along with one Mugesh Kumar by taking 20 sovereign of jewels. Since no action has been taken, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed.

¶34

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, on instructions from the third respondent, submitted that though the petitioner is well aware that her daughter was having love affair with the fourth respondent, the petitioner had arranged her engagement with one Selvakumar on 02.05.2025. Since the missing person did not like the said proposal, she had gone along with her friend Mugesh Kumar of Devakottai. Further the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner's family members have threatened the family members of the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent's brother Gunasekaran, has given a complaint against the family members of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's daughter had got married to the fourth respondent and that she is now pregnant. During enquiry, they have informed the police that the petitioner and his family members are preventing them to go to their village and the petitioner's daughter is not illegal detention.

¶35

Page 3 of 5

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

H.C.P(MD) No.677 of 2025

¶38

4.Since the missing person is a major and she is entitled to take her own

¶39

decision and that there is no illegal custody, the Habeas Corpus petition is closed. The second respondent is directed to give protection to the petitioner's daughter and fourth respondent.

¶40

[A.D.J.C., J.] & [R.P., J.] 19.06.2025

¶41

NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No

¶42

¶43

¶44

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by The Superintendant of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

¶45

2.The Deputy Superintendant of Police, Thiruvadanai,

¶46

Ramanathapuram District.

¶47

3.The Tamil Nadu State Rep by the The Inspector of Police, Thondi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶48

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶49

Page 4 of 5

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

H.C.P(MD) No.677 of 2025

¶52

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA , J.

¶53

¶54

H.C.P(MD)No.677 of 2025

¶55

19.06.2025

¶56

Page 5 of 5

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Revathi v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revathi v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Tharalam Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Rani Vs The Home Secretary

Alagammal Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

R.Shanmugam Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Jeyakumar Vs Maria Nancy Raina

Arunbaskar Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Prison